The US/USTA needs to apply the age old time tested good karma principle
that a player plays with levels above them and below
ala Roddick mentoring Harrison nurture develop and give back

ala the hired (former)college hitter at the academy for the best juniors
who play with the next best juniors

While the stated intentions/goals of the USTA Jr Committee have merit
to
1) grow tennis (mission statement)
2) not miss school
3) more family time
4) reduce costs
5) increase local play
6) more local/regional qualifying for nat'l play
7) have best players playing best players identitfy best players and help develop best players

the Best path for US tennis and their stated goals is
more national play not less
more players playing nationals not less
more futures and challengers
more ITF's across country
more inter college/ junior tournament events
more team tennis

Reducing incentives like # of tournaments from 8 to 6
and changing point structure has already deemphasized
needs to chase points

However, Limiting draw sizes from 64 to 32 in Nat Opens ridiculously excludes
50% of participation and gross revenues for the benifit of final 4 main's and back's one day hotel cost and missing school (if not home schooled)
NO active Parents,players,coaches directors have supported this (save a up to a theoretical min 2-5% that I havent met)

Further Reducing Natl Opens to 2x' a year once in Feb which has been even finished in recent years due to rain and during Thanksgiving (FAMILY TIME?)
not that anyone REALLY minds. But eliminating July Nat opens when no school? and reducing 3 site field to 96 total?

Easter Bowl to 32? from 128? x 8 divisions...75% denied former nat'l opportunity and this was compromise for some of USTA that wanted the Easter Bowl Gone!!!

Winter Nationals to a 32 training team workshop? Great, now include all 128 per division and include 12's whose players and families would really love it as they do zonals

Then reducing and restricting Regionals to own regions? Playing Same Kids again.

Qualifying progressively is a system but why limit to that.

Before 2011 WE have experienced freedom of choice, freedom of opportunities to play more Nat'l family events, travel fun, missing school where kids make up assignments and or do online and still pull 4.0's, get a
2nd CHANCE at playing someone from NY or FL or Mich or in an older division
and train a few days extra on the road for the Copper Bowl.
These are valued, beneficial, and treasured experiences minimized and or denied.

In their quest to development of pros The 2014 USTA changes appear to confuse and favor the goals of the development program at the expense and denial
of freedom of participation of the multitudes where the next champions may very well come from, the late bloomers, injured, the multi sporters etc..

Instead of denying participation
how about ADDING and GROWING participation
for Better players
MORE FUTURES and Challengers
and top junior events with
future competitors
Create incentives for futures players to train and compete with top juniors

Perhaps a bridge between those impossible first ATP points

As the USTA has proposed and passed and implemented certain changes
its current system has not provided adequate input nor beneficial structure
representative and in the interests of WE the parents, Jr community players, coaches, directors, and industry.
With modern technology, input and representative consensus and mandate can be better achieved with surveys, open meetings.blogs,etc..
But this is another discussion that will help achieve the free flow of ideas
towards a truly mandated, beneficial, and representative system and structure that we in US JR tennis may participate, thrive, and flourish.

I don't know why 99% of regular junior tennis supporters need to be so concerned about what is facing the top 1%.

Seriously, if you are good enough to be ranked in top 50 to 100, you have plenty of opportunities to play people better/worse than you. I am not going to lose sleep over the fact that these miniscule percentage of players are somehow being wronged.

USTA needs to worry more about the 100,000 junior players of varying skills and get them more interested in tennis. What happens with top 36 or 64 players will have no effect on that.

I don't know why 99% of regular junior tennis supporters need to be so concerned about what is facing the top 1%.

Seriously, if you are good enough to be ranked in top 50 to 100, you have plenty of opportunities to play people better/worse than you. I am not going to lose sleep over the fact that these miniscule percentage of players are somehow being wronged.

USTA needs to worry more about the 100,000 junior players of varying skills and get them more interested in tennis. What happens with top 36 or 64 players will have no effect on that.

I thought Ten and under tennis is suppose to address juniors of varying skills and levels and get them more interested in tennis? They have green ball up to age 12.

I am new to this forum
really...
frustrated with the state and direction of US tennis
and willing to express
my ideas in spite of unproductive stifling attitudes
as yours expressed

Aloha

I think what they were trying to say that this topic has been discussed ad-infinitum here, that's all.

You will find plenty of support for your position, but you will also be attacked mercilessly as a whining, rich tennis parent with a kid who sucks at tennis who just wants to point chase all over the country..

I think what they were trying to say that this topic has been discussed ad-infinitum here, that's all.

You will find plenty of support for your position, but you will also be attacked mercilessly as a whining, rich tennis parent with a kid who sucks at tennis who just wants to point chase all over the country..

have fun storming the castle...

These are my suggestions observations cause I care, am knowledgable and am John Q Public served. I am not rich. l work with and see kids all over the country that want to play natls and cant. I work with kids and have my own kids that did and do Natls now. While the topic may have been discussed here it is still very much alive and present needing more light the better.Shared over 200 views in 7 hours, time to share well worth it.
No storming here just asking for modern communication.
Freedom of speech and choice ,Buddy

These are my suggestions observations cause I care, am knowledgable and am John Q Public served. I am not rich. l work with and see kids all over the country that want to play natls and cant. I work with kids and have my own kids that did and do Natls now. While the topic may have been discussed here it is still very much alive and present needing more light the better.Shared over 200 views in 7 hours, time to share well worth it.
No storming here just asking for modern communication.
Freedom of speech and choice ,Buddy

Relax, buddy.

If you take the time to read what has already been posted, you will find I am on your side, probably no stronger advocate for you position, buddy.

I wasnt making accustations, I was just trying to I give you a friendly heads up, but nevermind, buddy.

I don't know why 99% of regular junior tennis supporters need to be so concerned about what is facing the top 1%.

Seriously, if you are good enough to be ranked in top 50 to 100, you have plenty of opportunities to play people better/worse than you. I am not going to lose sleep over the fact that these miniscule percentage of players are somehow being wronged.

USTA needs to worry more about the 100,000 junior players of varying skills and get them more interested in tennis. What happens with top 36 or 64 players will have no effect on that.

You missed my point, Im saying the top %1 should be playing with players below as well, in 64 draws in Nat opens and 128-196 in 4 Nat championships giving those top 200-300-400 chance to compete and get better
and in turn be challenged with higher levels
There are very few futures, ITFs, challengers in west US

and TOP players DO affect and INSPIRE all levels of players
Michael Chang, Arthur Ashe, Agassi, Federer, Roddick's serve, the Williams sisters, all inspired new players and products
we all watched Oudin a few years back, or root for Big John,... who's the next young buck?
We are all in it together

Thank you tennis5 for the background on this forum
I dont party much and didnt participate on your forum but did observe
and I did give input to USTA prior to 2011 changes vehemently in summer 2010
but of course just heard the inadequate rationales that have failed to be fulfilled. Thanks for all your right on analogies re train(s).
What is DONE is that the USTA passed something Bad in March 2014 Yes
However there is a clear mandate from the players,parents, coaches, TD's, and industry and now with a little media exposure that these changes are not supported by membership and affiliates served.
What is also DONE is 2011 and much of 2012 living with the changes and their adverse affects on participation,tournament directors, and economies.
The systemic boiling point IS reached with these 2014 changes.
We all get burnt out and dont want to be bothered in futility.
But like this great game of tennis, as we teach our kids it might be 2-5 in the 3rd of this match,
but there's another match tomorrow and the day after that.
It aint OVER. It is not 2013 yet. There will be more meetings.
The train will come around again and our bags need be packed.
MORE Media exposure and high profile support, tennis stars, celebrities
need be involved. All that is asked is a fair and accountable participation
in process of determining structure of participants served.

You missed my point, Im saying the top %1 should be playing with players below as well, in 64 draws in Nat opens and 128-196 in 4 Nat championships giving those top 200-300-400 chance to compete and get better
and in turn be challenged with higher levels
There are very few futures, ITFs, challengers in west US

and TOP players DO affect and INSPIRE all levels of players
Michael Chang, Arthur Ashe, Agassi, Federer, Roddick's serve, the Williams sisters, all inspired new players and products
we all watched Oudin a few years back, or root for Big John,... who's the next young buck?
We are all in it together

No, I got your point just fine. Top 200-300-400 are still TINY fractions of kids playing in high schools and parks all around the country. USTA should be focused on getting more kids to play, not catering to every whims of those top players. Most of those kids already have full compliments of support and resources, 99% of the junior kids do not.

The record of USTA producing top players over last couple of decades (at least in men's side) have been abysmal. What you are suggesting is just going back to the same system that has produced jack squat.

I agree top players do inspire others. And I think the record shows that catering to those top 200-300-400 players does not produce inspiring results. What will produce better result is to get more and more juniors to participate because it will increase the chance that someone out of that increased pool will become great.

USTA needs to focus on growing the game more broadly. If cutting back on top 200-300-400 players will allow them to shift the resources to top 200,000-300,000-400,000 players, that is a wise choice to make.

No, I got your point just fine. Top 200-300-400 are still TINY fractions of kids playing in high schools and parks all around the country. USTA should be focused on getting more kids to play, not catering to every whims of those top players. Most of those kids already have full compliments of support and resources, 99% of the junior kids do not.

They are focused on getting more kids to play. That is the what TUAT program is about. It is working, at least as far as achieving that objective. More kids are starting tennis younger.

The changes to the competition schedule have nothing to do with that, except Pmac thinks that by reducing the amount of national competition the sport will look more attractive to parents deciding what sports there kid should focus on at the age of 8,9,10, etc(his own words). You are mixing apples and oranges.

Keep in mind the changes were not just to national tournaments, they eliminated half of the sectional events that had national ranking point too. The changes to the national competition schedule are about focusing more on top players and eliminating the riff-raff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gameboy

The record of USTA producing top players over last couple of decades (at least in men's side) have been abysmal. What you are suggesting is just going back to the same system that has produced jack squat.

Top players are not produced by federations. They are produced by coaches, parents, and systems that allow them to thrive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gameboy

USTA needs to focus on growing the game more broadly. If cutting back on top 200-300-400 players will allow them to shift the resources to top 200,000-300,000-400,000 players, that is a wise choice to make.

Except that is not the choice they are making. They are not shifting any resources from the top 200-300-400 to the 200,000-300,000-400,00. They are shifting resources from the top 200-300-400 to focus in the top 1-50-100.

They say they know who the potential pros are by 13 or 14 via there Talent ID network, so they want to focus all the national tournaments on them, make them better. That's why most of the 'new' events are exclusive 'master' events for the top 16, 32, etc. What was eliminated were the bottom half of the draws for the other tournaments, the kids over 100.

Look, what they are saying is if you are not a top 100 player, they don't care about you. You could be 200, 2000, or 200,000, doesn't matter. Don't play national competitions, you are a nuisance, and wasting the time and money of the really good kids.

Look, what they are saying is if you are not a top 100 player, they don't care about you. You could be 200, 2000, or 200,000, doesn't matter. Don't play national competitions, you are a nuisance, and wasting the time and money of the really good kids.

Exactly Aloha. I said this a year ago. It appears the new model is TAUT to create lots of tennis fans to buy equipment, play in leagues, attend the Open.

And support the handful they think can make it, a few American champs to feed the fan base they created.

The problem with the plan is that no one can hand pick a group from which the next champion will come. But they think they can.

No, I got your point just fine. Top 200-300-400 are still TINY fractions of kids playing in high schools and parks all around the country. USTA should be focused on getting more kids to play, not catering to every whims of those top players. Most of those kids already have full compliments of support and resources, 99% of the junior kids do not.

The record of USTA producing top players over last couple of decades (at least in men's side) have been abysmal. What you are suggesting is just going back to the same system that has produced jack squat.

I agree top players do inspire others. And I think the record shows that catering to those top 200-300-400 players does not produce inspiring results. What will produce better result is to get more and more juniors to participate because it will increase the chance that someone out of that increased pool will become great.

USTA needs to focus on growing the game more broadly. If cutting back on top 200-300-400 players will allow them to shift the resources to top 200,000-300,000-400,000 players, that is a wise choice to make.

I agree the USTA should grow the game broadly.... at all levels. and much of the time it has been attempting to.
However there needs to be a free and open pipeline of opportunities for all.
Eliminating nat'l opportunities for the aspiring #200-800 doesn't add 100,000-400,000 players it actually discourages them if they are looking for upward competitive opportunities. You have brought up a very valid and important point of getting more players involved. I am all for that and have spent much of my tennis energy participating in that in NJTL's for years and team tennis etc The USTA has long recognized that this a game and kids want to play and compete. The 70's Natl Jr Tennis Leagues were
give 'em a racquet, teach them to play, play games matches immediately
technique as you go, within match play.10 and under tennis....
Like the 50 kids at a summer NJTL clinic that only play each summer, need an intermediate competitive level forum prior to HS to progress
The top 1000 need a free flow of opportunities earned to the top
They are the closest to the future pros. No matter the resources
No,stifiled,limited, and delayed nat'l opportunities = discouragement.
Growing the grassroots is a parallel level of focus to natl play opportunities
Its about bridges, progressions, and a free flow multi-pipelines of opportunities.

They are focused on getting more kids to play. That is the what TUAT program is about. It is working, at least as far as achieving that objective. More kids are starting tennis younger.

The changes to the competition schedule have nothing to do with that, except Pmac thinks that by reducing the amount of national competition the sport will look more attractive to parents deciding what sports there kid should focus on at the age of 8,9,10, etc(his own words). You are mixing apples and oranges.

Keep in mind the changes were not just to national tournaments, they eliminated half of the sectional events that had national ranking point too. The changes to the national competition schedule are about focusing more on top players and eliminating the riff-raff.

Top players are not produced by federations. They are produced by coaches, parents, and systems that allow them to thrive.

Except that is not the choice they are making. They are not shifting any resources from the top 200-300-400 to the 200,000-300,000-400,00. They are shifting resources from the top 200-300-400 to focus in the top 1-50-100.

They say they know who the potential pros are by 13 or 14 via there Talent ID network, so they want to focus all the national tournaments on them, make them better. That's why most of the 'new' events are exclusive 'master' events for the top 16, 32, etc. What was eliminated were the bottom half of the draws for the other tournaments, the kids over 100.

Look, what they are saying is if you are not a top 100 player, they don't care about you. You could be 200, 2000, or 200,000, doesn't matter. Don't play national competitions, you are a nuisance, and wasting the time and money of the really good kids.